Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 6 (2017) 353–369 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition journa l homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jarmac Beyond Misinformation: Understanding and Coping with the “Post-Truth” Era ∗ Stephan Lewandowsky University of Bristol, United Kingdom University of Western Australia, Australia Ullrich K.H. Ecker University of Western Australia, Australia John Cook George Mason University, United States The terms “post-truth” and “fake news” have become increasingly prevalent in public discourse over the last year. This article explores the growing abundance of misinformation, how it influences people, and how to counter it. We examine the ways in which misinformation can have an adverse impact on society. We summarize how people respond to corrections of misinformation, and what kinds of corrections are most effective. We argue that to be effective, scientific research into misinformation must be considered within a larger political, technological, and societal context. The post-truth world emerged as a result of societal mega-trends such as a decline in social capital, growing economic inequality, increased polarization, declining trust in science, and an increasingly fractionated media landscape. We suggest that responses to this malaise must involve technological solutions incorporating psychological principles, an interdisciplinary approach that we describe as “technocognition.” We outline a number of recommendations to counter misinformation in a post-truth world. General Audience Summary Imagine a world that considers knowledge to be “elitist.” Imagine a world in which it is not medical knowledge but a free-for-all opinion market on Twitter that determines whether a newly emergent strain of avian flu is really contagious to humans. This dystopian future is still just that—a possible future. However, there are signs that public discourse is evolving in this direction: terms such as “post-truth” and “fake news,” largely unknown until 2016, have exploded into media and public discourse. This article explores the growing abundance of misinformation in the public sphere, how it influences people, and how to counter it. We show how misinfor- mation can have an adverse impact on society, for example by predisposing parents to make disadvantageous medical decisions for their children. We argue that for countermeasures to be effective, they must be informed by the larger political, technological, and societal context. The post-truth world arguably emerged as a result of societal mega-trends, such as a decline in social capital, growing economic inequality, increased polarization, declining trust in science, and an increasingly fractionated media landscape. Considered against the background Author Note ∗ Preparation of this paper was facilitated by a Wolfson Research Merit Award Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Stephan from the Royal Society to the first author. The first author was also supported by Lewandowsky, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of funding from the Psychonomic Society, and the first two authors are recipients Bristol, 12a Priory Road, Bristol BS8 1TU, United Kingdom. Contact: of a Discovery Grant from the Australian Research Council. [email protected], http://www.cogsciwa.com BEYOND MISINFORMATION 354 of those overarching trends, misinformation in the post-truth era can no longer be considered solely an isolated failure of individual cognition that can be corrected with appropriate communication tools. Rather, it should also consider the influence of alternative epistemologies that defy conventional standards of evidence. Responses to the post-truth era must therefore include technological solutions that incorporate psychological principles, an interdisciplinary approach that we describe as “technocognition.” Technocognition uses findings from cognitive science to inform the design of information architectures that encourage the dissemination of high-quality information and that discourage the spread of misinformation. Keywords: Misinformation, Fake news, Post-truth politics, Demagoguery Imagine a world that has had enough of experts. That con- automated pro-Trump traffic being at least 4 times as prevalent siders knowledge to be “elitist.” Imagine a world in which it as automated pro-Clinton traffic (Kollanyi, Howard, & Woolley, is not expert knowledge but an opinion market on Twitter that 2016). determines whether a newly emergent strain of avian flu is really The dissociation between accuracy and President Trump’s contagious to humans, or whether greenhouse gas emissions do attractiveness to voters is underscored by recent laboratory in fact cause global warming, as 97% of domain experts say research investigating the effects of corrections on voters’ beliefs they do (Anderegg, Prall, Harold, & Schneider, 2010; Cook and voting intentions: Swire, Berinsky, Lewandowsky, and et al., 2013, 2016; Oreskes, 2004). In this world, power lies Ecker (2017) presented statements that President Trump made with those most vocal and influential on social media: from on the primary campaign trail to a large sample of participants celebrities and big corporations to botnet puppeteers who can and elicited belief ratings. Half the statements were true (e.g., mobilize millions of tweetbots or sock puppets—that is, fake “the U.S. spent $2 trillion on the war in Iraq”) and the other online personas through which a small group of operatives can half consisted of false claims (e.g., “vaccines cause autism”). create an illusion of a widespread opinion (Bu, Xia, & Wang, When participants received corrections of the false statements, 2013; Lewandowsky, 2011). In this world, experts are derided and affirmations of the correct statements, their belief ratings as untrustworthy or elitist whenever their reported facts threaten changed accordingly: all participants, including Trump support- the rule of the well-financed or the prejudices of the uninformed. ers, believed statements less after they were identified as false, How close are we to this dystopian future? We may not be and they believed them more after they were affirmed as being there (yet), although there are reasons to be concerned about correct. However, for Trump supporters there was no associa- our trajectory. The terms “post-truth” and “post-fact,” virtually tion between the extent to which they shifted their belief when a unknown 5 years ago, have exploded onto the media scene with statement was corrected and their feelings for President Trump thousands of recent mentions. To illustrate, the media search or their intention to vote for him. Thus, it seems that President engine Factiva returns 40 hits in the global media for “post- Trump’s false claims did not matter to his supporters—at least truth” in all of 2015, compared to 2535 in 2016 and around they did not matter sufficiently to alter their feelings or voting 2400 during the first 3 months of 2017 alone. The prevalence of intentions. misinformation in 2016 led the Oxford Dictionary to nominate This article uses the context of those recent public events “post-truth” as the word of the year (Flood, 2016). The rapidly to pursue a number of questions: What explains the grow- growing recognition of the role of misinformation follows on the ing abundance of misinformation? Why do people believe in heels of earlier warnings, for example by the World Economic misinformation? If misinformation is corrected, do people reli- Forum—a not-for-profit institution “committed to improving the ably update their beliefs? To what extent are people concerned state of the world”—which ranked the spread of misinformation with whether or not information is accurate? This article places online as one of the 10 most significant issues facing the world the findings from cognitive research on misinformation into a in 2013 (WEF, 2013). broader political and societal context. We point to a few societal During the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, independent mega-trends that might help us understand the current malaise fact checker PolitiFact judged 70% of all statements by Don- in public discourse. We conclude by providing some tentative ald Trump to be false or mostly false. For his opponent, Hillary pointers to possible solutions. Clinton, this rate was much lower (although arguably still quite high) at 26%. Donald Trump won the presidency, suggesting that The Fallout From Misinformation his comparatively impoverished record of accuracy, compared It is a truism that a functioning democracy relies on a to that of his opponent, did not diminish his attractiveness with a 1 well-informed public (Kuklinski, Quirk, Jerit, Schwieder, & large number of voters. Impressions of President Trump’s popu- Rich, 2000). Conversely, if people are pervasively misinformed, larity were possibly boosted by the fact that a substantial portion chances are that societal decisions will be suboptimal. Likewise, of all pro-Trump traffic on Twitter was driven by tweetbots, with if an individual is misinformed, that person’s decisions may not be in their best interest and can have adverse consequences. For 1 example, following the unsubstantiated—and now thoroughly When assessing this attractiveness, it must be borne in mind that Donald Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3,000,000 votes (http://edition.cnn.com/ debunked (DeStefano & Thompson, 2004; Godlee, Smith, 2016/12/21/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote-final-count/).